Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Mikey T.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 70
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain this to me.........
« on: March 24, 2020, 01:45:02 PM »


Dr. Richard Feynman dumbs down the scientific method fairly well here, and in consequence shows how not experimenting or not having any way to test the guesses made is worthless.  Educated guess, determine the consequences, test, if not wrong yet you are good for now.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Double standards
« on: March 19, 2020, 07:40:11 AM »
Yep, analogs should be as close an approximation as possible.  Say like viewing from the same angle since we are viewing a 3D world in a 2D picture.  If you move the camera only, the shadow/terminator line will not change.  Are you suggesting the shadows magically change to hide the flat Earth? 

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« on: March 07, 2020, 10:13:17 AM »
Really, nothing will change the minds of people who honestly hold a belief, whether it is based in facts, faith, or skepticism.  When you believe something strongly, all opposing "evidence" is invalid, all opposing viewpoints are wrong and sometimes "evil".  True believers of an ideal wont be swayed by any amount of opposition to their beliefs.  The argument isn't to change the mind of the person holding an opposing belief, it is for the undecided who may be swayed.  Of course there are plenty of people who espouse an opposing belief for fun or for some other type of gain.  Those individuals will never walk back what they pretend to support either.  So don't worry so much about changing the minds of someone who you think are wrong, just state your case for the peanut gallery watching.  Bringing actual evidence to your arguments helps, but apparently for some, is not a necessity.
What do I know though, I gave up trying to actually argue on this site a while ago.   

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Alien Life
« on: March 04, 2020, 09:55:47 AM »
no

you get two more guesses

If aliens exist, would their planets be flat too?
If the FE were an infinite plane then there would an opportunity of other "solar systems" beyond our current known area that could harbor more advanced civilizations who can traverse the distances between and visit.  So, in that model, their "planets" would be flat so to speak.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Videos
« on: March 03, 2020, 02:38:51 PM »
Another Professor dave FE video


6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bishop Challenge
« on: February 28, 2020, 10:50:39 AM »
Wow, clarifying yourself in a follow up post within 5 minutes is spamming.  Quality moderation at its finest. 

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain
« on: February 03, 2020, 10:28:01 AM »
So, the "tool" shows what you would see on a globe.  You go outside and look and the "tool" was correct to what you actually see, for multiple times.  Sounds to me like eye witness verification.  So where are the "tools" that are based on a flat model then?  What is the correct flat model anyway? 

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Earth debunk
« on: January 24, 2020, 10:22:25 AM »
So you globemadearthers are attacking our theory for a long time here so I decided to totally debunk your theory without any need for insults and logic that makes no sense in just a few points that their cannot explain and ours can.

1. HOW CAN THERE BE WATER WHEN THE GLOBE IS SPINNING AT 1000 mph

     Seriously this is just ridiculous just as a child spinning too fast on a playground on a carousel the water would just be thrown away with that big force. Also no need to say that the speed with which Earth rotates around Sun is also riduculous and the water just couldnt keep up with the Earth. Which brings me to another point.


Take a globe (12" diameter, like the ones they have in schools)

Wet the surface with water so water droplets are present on the surface.

Rotate the globe at a rate of 1 rotation every 24 hours.

Does the water droplets fly off?

Scale the globe up to the size of the earth.....


Additionally.

Speed is relative.

The average human male is 6 ft tall.  A mile is 5280 ft.  Something moving at 100 miles an hour is fast compared to our size.

A garden snail is about 3 inches long.  It moves at a rate of 0.029 mph.  That is very slow compared to our size.

The earth's circumference is 24901 miles.  A 1000 miles per hour is slow.

The solar system is over 7.4B miles in diameter.  1000 miles an hour is so slow it's almost non movement.


Think about it.
Simply put, rotate the globe at 0.0007 rpm.  Because the is the actually rotational speed of the Earth.  The purposeful misinformation of using a linear speed because it sounds so fast confuses many people and I honestly believe the majority of people saying it know full well that they are misconstruing things.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth rotation
« on: January 15, 2020, 01:08:37 PM »
So, no then.  You could have just said no.  What makes you think it's all noise?  Did you notice the slope of the average actually increase at constant rate over that 1 hour graph?  Do you know what that may or may not mean?  I didn't read the article, so why did you post it, what is it showing?  Don't be lazy, explain your reasoning for it being evidence to support your position, not point at something you clearly don't understand and say it's just noise.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Solar power source
« on: November 17, 2019, 05:54:35 AM »
Amazing, topic is solar power source, Sandy can freely spam offtopic nonsense.  No moderation in sight.  I say the slightest joke, and it's " not adding to the conversation", I challenge someone to prove an assertion, it's "take some time off to calm down".
Basically, gravity powers the Sun.  It needs a lot of mass, thus must be enormous relative to us.  If it is enormous, it must be far away to look so small.  Easy peasy, flat earf proven dumb again.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lack of flat earth images
« on: September 10, 2019, 08:44:38 PM »

Why would I go there and destroy my argument? I will cherry pick what is and is not acceptable to tailor my argument to be as 1 sided as possible.
Holy shit, an honest response.   Abra cadabra I'm now in AR. 

12
What is the circumference of the DE disk?
Hate to add to the necro thread but to answer your question since I have not seen JROWE around lately, the DE model at that time had a circumference near the same as the Globe model, so around 25000 miles.  There may have been a bit of a difference but I believe the intent was that the model matched more closely to reality as far as distances.  Many FE models have to stretch and skew continents and oceans  the further South you go.  The DE model tried to address that along with Southern circumpolar star paths.  It got a little weird around the equator with some teleportation like effect going on and the Sun being in the middle between the two discs with a lensing effect to make the sun appear in the sky.  I don't know all of those particulars and he probably made more changes beyond the point at which I was paying attention. 

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« on: August 12, 2019, 12:43:05 PM »
Link 1

There are plenty of videos of people seeing further than Aristotle's ancient sinking ship proof should allow. Inconsistent proofs invalidate the matter. Find real evidence rather than spamming the same old same old.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Down
« on: August 04, 2019, 12:13:01 AM »
So, no logical reasoning for the downwards force we describe as gravity then? 
Im not sure how much more fundamental I can get to discuss the differences between RE and FE without going back to discussing the absolute need for a conspiracy to "hide" the supposed true shape of the Earth. 
Jackblack's and my discussion about how an infinite plane would react to changes in matter concentrations was the only discussion had in this threrad.  I gave you a chance to explain something fundamental.  We need you to start acting like people who actually believe the things you say.  You need to give some logica reasoning, not some smart ass failed gotcha attempt.  If you truely believe the Earth is flat, explain why things fall, what causes that, why down and not up, etc. 
Yes I am trying to get you to explain the fundamentals so I can tear it to shreds like it deserves, but not even trying to defend your assertions does just as much to expose the con that is FE.

15
Flat Earth General / Re: An IMPOSSIBLE hoax
« on: August 04, 2019, 12:09:16 AM »
-Satellites in orbit around hub
-Troposcatter Technology
-Solar Powered Drones
-Balloons

I think the simplest answer to How could Direct Satellite TV services work without satellites? is actually that they wouldn't. They use satellites. There's no need to make up a whole bunch of other proposed solutions when we already have one: Satellites.

Take it from a guy who installed those TV Sat dishes in the states.  DirecTV, Dishnet, etc.  Been there done that, spent several years installing them.  I can tell you without a doubt that only way they can work is with a geostationary satellite.  I've trained many installers too.  I found the easiest way to get an installer to pay attention to what they are doing is by making sure they understand the system and how it actually works.  I had them go through blocking the dish from all angles until they killed the signal with nothing but a piece of cardboard a bit smaller than a piece of 8.5X11 paper.  For the smallest size of dishes, the ones that only pull in signals from one satellite, the signal comes in at around 22 degrees of bounce.  This means that at the center of the dish, the signal doesn't come straight in but comes in from above.  Verified this literally hundreds of times.  I am also an engineer, I understand and have worked with signals and know how they propagate.  There are no serious flat Earth notions that can survive without there being some conspiracytm, I don't care how much you whine and fuss.  Simple everyday people do things that rely on a spherical Earth, like your friendly satellite dish installer.  There are many, but this one I have intimate knowledge of.  It is also super easy to get dish settings that are freely available to the public and do a little math to triangulate the source of the signals.  Ill give you a hint, its in geostationary orbit.  Way too high for a balloon, way too high for a dome reflection(the reflection itself has to be a part of the conspiracy since I would love to see how you make a verifiable line of sight signal reflect from a singular point off a dome that covers the customer area.  The signal also can be measured by, anyone, and see the signal strength as you change locations is 100% in line with the globe model, it doesn't work on a pizza.  Meanwhile, FE can't even get a single model that can describe things we see every day that doesn't contradict another model that you use to explain something else. 
And, queue my post being moved.  Can't challenge anyone to stand behind their assertions here, can't say anything that might hurt the feelings of a flat Earther. 

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Down
« on: July 14, 2019, 01:40:34 PM »
Logical reasoning means nothing huh?  Spend more time answering the questions and less time being smartasses please.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Down
« on: July 14, 2019, 04:26:45 AM »

Gravity doesn't work on a flat plane.  Infinite or not.  Any miniscule difference in density of the crust of an infinite plane would throw off any possibility of stability and thus it would collapse into spheres.  The ground beneath your feet is not infinitely rigid, which is the only thing that would keep it from collapsing if someone simply dug a hole and displaced that excess mass to another spot on the plane.
It doesn't need to be infinitely rigid.
It only needs to be rigid enough to overcome the forces generated by irregularities.

What you are saying is the same as claiming gravity should make a finite Earth into a perfect sphere, or a rotating one into a perfect oblate spheroid.
Perhaps my line of thinking is invalid.  I was gathering with infinite mass a homogenis gravity field would need something infinitely rigid to counter any irregularities.  Basically the entire structure shares the load of all of the force.  I figured that a finite mass under gravity would be able to handle structural irregularities better since it is not trying to counter an infinite amount of force.  Just my line of reasoning, could be wrong, not as wrong as density causes.   

Again, please anyone offering answers give a logical reasoning for your answer, i.e. how and why.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Down
« on: July 12, 2019, 03:08:17 PM »
why is down... down? 
Gravity doesn't work on a flat plane.  Infinite or not.  Any miniscule difference in density of the crust of an infinite plane would throw off any possibility of stability and thus it would collapse into spheres.  The ground beneath your feet is not infinitely rigid, which is the only thing that would keep it from collapsing if someone simply dug a hole and displaced that excess mass to another spot on the plane.  Now you have more mass in one spot and less in another causing an instability which would always lead to a collapse.  Gravity measurements around the globe show differences in G due to altitude and density of mass underneath you.  With an infinite plane you need to have the mass of ground very evenly distributed to spread out the force of G to keep it stabile. 
Since I can easily move dirt and rocks out of a hole with current technology this proves the ground is not infinitely rigid and an infinite plane could not withstand any concentration of mass. 
Again, for a flat Earth that doesn't destroy itself, what is down?  Why do things fall... down? 
Also, I did request a logical reasoning for your answer, you failed.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Down
« on: July 12, 2019, 09:51:31 AM »
What makes things fall down?
What is down? 

Explain the reasoning logically please.


20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Emergency Plane Landings
« on: July 11, 2019, 02:55:17 PM »
As usual misattributung things, i.e. bald face lying, to claim support for their own misconceptions.  If I had to guess, I would say maybe 5 to 10 percent of current flight paths could be made to work on a flat Earth, hence the reason for the claims that pilots know but follow orders to hide the supposed true shape of the Earth.  Not one one way flight to or from Australia to South America has ever emergency landed in Alaska.  Pure, unadulterated lies yet again. 
Perhaps there is a FE map we could plot existing flight paths on so we could discuss if the pilots are in in the conspiracy?  I still, after a few years now, await a single map that fits all FE claims.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Videos
« on: July 11, 2019, 12:26:37 PM »
Found another Professor dave.  Pretty good. 


22
So what? I thought that YOU were the one who claimed to be able to think things through logically.
The pressure in a Sprite can increases considerably when is heated:
Quote
what is the average pressure in a 12 oz. soda can?
To give you a quick example, let's say that the soda was carbonated to 3.0 volumes of CO2 and it has been sitting in your refrigerator so it's around 40 degrees F. 
The pressure inside the can will be roughly 17 psig (pounds per square inch, gauge) above atmospheric pressure. 
If you let the can warm up on the counter so its temperature increases to 70 F or so, the pressure inside the can will have increased to about 36 psig.
That's well over twice 14.7 psig above atmospheric pressure just warming a can to room temperature - and you wouldn't want all your cans exploding then!

But, you, yourself, noted that the ISS was kept at 14.7 psia so whether it's toasty warm of freezing cold is quite irrelevant!


Pressure inside a tire bike can up to 130 psi. But that is not against the vacuum.
If we place a tire bike with 130 psi in vacuum it will explode.

Not if it's rated to 150 psi.
Outstanding answer. 

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water and spinning ball
« on: June 22, 2019, 06:46:49 PM »
The mentally deficient ramblings of the ones who can't understand centrifugal force and are absolutely stumped by numbers with more than 3 digits is some of the funniest stuff I have seen today.  Centrifugal force is determined by the change in direction, aka tied to the rotations per a unit of time.   The larger the diameter the faster the rotation past a fixed point to maintain the same force.  Too lazy to calculate it, yet will claim false all day long.  So uh how's the stupid denpressure experiments going that we're promised, what 3 years or was it 4 years ago now?  Still nothing?  Thought so.

25
What about stand alone accelerometers that are used in development boards like Ardiunos?  Or the rudimentary weight, string and protractor single axis ones we made in college physics 201 lab, that we used to measure a fairly close approximation of the force imparted on the accelerometers during a change in direction of acceleration?  I love some idiotic people who have no clue as to what an accelerometer is are trying to explain that they need location??? services to work.
brilliantly proving that all you have to do is sit back and watch the show and laugh while they languish on Mt. Stupid. 

   

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Undeniable Proof that the earth is round
« on: June 12, 2019, 07:54:18 PM »
It's a mental disorder.  Narrow minded people who flock to conspiracy theories are more likely deny things that highlights how wrong their world view is.  they also are more prone to derail threads or leap into racist or derogatory comments since they simply do not understand the basic details of normal conversations.  Wise/Brotherhood of the Dome is a prime example of this. 
By the way, quite simply, sunset/sunrise is one thing that absolutely does not work on ANY flat earth model.  There is no flat Earth model that can describe what we see in reality, they need multiple "models" to call on to try to hand wave away specific arguments.  Even good old Globebusters somehow got ahold of $20,000 to purchase equipment that just did nothing but disprove all flat Earth models that try to explain the apparent movement of the Sun across the Sky. 


Lets make it easy, provide a model that explains sunsets/sunrises, while explaining the Sun not changing angular size or its speed, and the Southern and Northern circumpolar star paths all at the same time.  It is super simple with a spheroid heliocentric solar system model that we observe as reality.  The fact that you can't do that is undeniable proof that the flat Earth notion is absolutely stupid. 

27
Such fail.  I may try to explain how satellite signals work again to show you how stupid this dome studded transmitter idea is, but most of you flat earfers would just scream and poke your fingers in your ears

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Videos
« on: April 27, 2019, 05:39:26 PM »
I intended on this being a discussion on the videos I provided, not a place to just mass post your own videos.  But sticks ng to the subject of a thread has always been tough for sicklypajamas.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Videos
« on: April 27, 2019, 08:21:43 AM »
Ok this video is slightly different.  One of the more vocal Flat Earthers out there is named Nathan Oakley.  He loves to sling insults around quite a bit instead of actually listening or answering questions, quite analogous to the majority of FE people I have interacted with.  Here is a short funny involving him and failing at math.


30
Flat Earth General / Re: moon landing
« on: April 26, 2019, 08:41:30 AM »
Most conspiracy theories are due to things like the Dunning Krueger effect.  It is not that the strongest supporters of those conspiracy theories are intentionally misleading others, it is because they do not truly understand the subject yet they honestly think they do.  Some people get stranded on that first peak of overconfidence when they believe that all counter arguments are coming from the conspiracy to mislead them.  They never allow themselves to consider that they are in fact wrong so they dismiss anything that does not fit their own misunderstanding.  The fun thing is that they honestly think the people who hold the opposing viewpoints are the ones dismissing their arguments for that same reasons. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
I honestly believe the moon landing conspiracy theory has some of strongest evidence for motives for the conspiracy there is, yet the rest of the evidence falls way short.  Yes, the motives for faking the moon landings are very plausible, yet the evidence that the landings actually happened is pretty overwhelming.  Yes they had a great reason (motive) to fake it if they couldn't actually do it, i.e. cold war, space race, bragging rights, etc.  But that motive also works for the U.S. spending the money, time, and expertise to actually get there also.  Just one of the many flies in the ointment was that at the time of the landings, the technology was not there to fake the videos that were made.  To this day, even with advanced CGI, we can't really effectively reproduce those videos without being able to spot the fakery.   

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 70